Jump to content
Thailand Visa Forum by Thai Visa | The Nation

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Aditi Sharma said:

 

 

You mean when the OP was at the immigration window asking for an extension they made the fine distinction for him ( for his benefit for the first ever time) that the co-operative was not a bank. He should have been told Sir we cant accept funds in a co-operative after this instance because we do not consider a co-operative to be a bank, I am sure you would understand, we let it pass this time. 

No, that's not what I meant. 

There has never been any official suggestion by the Immigration Police that anything other than a bank is acceptable for the deposit of visa extension funds.  There is not a fine distinction between the two as far as extensions of stay are concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

No, that's not what I meant. 

There has never been any official suggestion by the Immigration Police that anything other than a bank is acceptable for the deposit of visa extension funds.  There is not a fine distinction between the two as far as extensions of stay are concerned.

One couldnt tell, could one? That: there has never been any official suggestion by the Immigration Police that anything other than a bank is acceptable for the deposit of visa extension funds. So during the lack of it, the OP should have been given the benefit of the doubt not without being informed at the same time that funds in co-operative accounts would no longer be acceptable qualifying funds to support extension of stay applications. I am not saying your point of view in incorrect. Only if I may say so less compassionate towards the OP under the circumstances. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Aditi Sharma said:

I dont know. If you would not disagree with me that OP was a customer in the immigration office, it was poor customer service on their part to let him go and putting him through the hassle of moving funds from a co-operative to a bank. 

You don't know?   You should know by now, countless posters have clarified it for you.  

 

Is it "poor customer service" to expect the OP to do what every other extension applicant does, i.e. comply with the regulations?  What has happened in the past has no bearing whatsoever on his latest application.  That is a comment to you, not a criticism of the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Aditi Sharma said:

One couldnt tell, could one? That: there has never been any official suggestion by the Immigration Police that anything other than a bank is acceptablefor the deposit of visa extension funds. So during the lack of it, the OP should have been given the benefit of the doubt not without being informed at the same time that funds in co-operative accounts would no longer be acceptable qualifying funds to support extension of stay applications. I am not saying your point of view in incorrect. Only if I may say so less compassionate towards the OP under the circumstances. 

Jeez..

You need to read what I said again..."there has never been any official suggestion by the Immigration Police that anything other than a bank is acceptable" means that nothing else is acceptable, it does not mean that there is any doubt about acceptable institutions, nor does it mean that there is any ambiguity.  There was no benefit of the doubt required to be given.

 

You may say whatever you like but this is not a thread about compassion, it is a thread about Immigration's rules.  For very good reasons compassion is not an element of the granting of visa extensions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

You don't know?   You should know by now, countless posters have clarified it for you.  

 

Is it "poor customer service" to expect the OP to do what every other extension applicant does, i.e. comply with the regulations?  What has happened in the past has no bearing whatsoever on his latest application.  That is a comment to you, not a criticism of the OP.

That ' I dont know' was in response to the point about quibbling. 
As you have just stated that " there has never been any official suggestion by the Immigration Police that anything other than a bank is acceptable for the deposit of visa extension funds," you would agree that we were not talking about the OP's unwillingness to comply with the regulations. The regulations were quite agreeably grey on whether co-operatives were a bank or not. And to the OP's dismay, we all got to learn that they werent. Did you have prior knowledge that co-operatives were not a bank? Just asking.  Obviously, the OP was caught completely by surprise. Are you saying that even in these circumstances the OP shouldnt have been given the benefit of the doubt?   

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Immigration Police should have anticipated the OP's confusion and said that funds in anything other than a bank were NOT acceptable. In the absence of that clear contraindication, it creates ambiguity in the minds of people like the OP and for the purposes of equity they should be given the benefit of the doubt. That's what I think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Aditi Sharma said:

That ' I dont know' was in response to the point about quibbling. 
As you have just stated that " there has never been any official suggestion by the Immigration Police that anything other than a bank is acceptable for the deposit of visa extension funds," you would agree that we were not talking about the OP's unwillingness to comply with the regulations. The regulations were quite agreeably grey on whether co-operatives were a bank or not. And to the OP's dismay, we all got to learn that they werent. Did you have prior knowledge that co-operatives were not a bank? Just asking.  Obviously, the OP was caught completely by surprise. Are you saying that even in these circumstances the OP shouldnt have been given the benefit of the doubt?  

Please stop. 

 

The regulations are not a grey area.  It's a bank or nothing, it always has been.  No suggestion that any other place for deposits was acceptable has ever been made.  It is you that is trying to make it a grey area.

 

As it happens I did know that co-operatives were not banks but that is irrelevant also.

 

My opinion is that the IOs were absolutely correct in their decision but they did give him some leeway by ignoring the seasoning requirements for the funds after he had made the transfer to the correct place, so, effectively, he was given the benefit of the doubt.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Aditi Sharma said:

I think the Immigration Police should have anticipated the OP's confusion and said that funds in anything other than a bank were NOT acceptable. In the absence of that clear contraindication, it creates ambiguity in the minds of people like the OP and for the purposes of equity they should be given the benefit of the doubt. That's what I think. 

"I think the Immigration Police should have anticipated the OP's confusion and said that funds in anything other than a bank were NOT acceptable."

That is exactly what they said!  That's why he has to transfer his funds to a bank!

 

I'm assuming by "contraindication" you mean contradiction, but then I'm unsure what you mean by the "absence of that clear contradiction".  In the OP's case there was no contradiction, so there was an absence of contradiction as far as Immigration rules were concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2017 at 4:20 PM, mfd101 said:

If you had adopted the attitude and appearance of believing that it was all YOUR own fault and not theirs, you might have received a better result.

 

Save THEIR face and YOU can release a tirade in the car on the way home.

Spot on. Sounds like a new senior IO. Keep jai yen and ask how your misunderstanding can be resolved. You are the guest, remember. TIT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

"I think the Immigration Police should have anticipated the OP's confusion and said that funds in anything other than a bank were NOT acceptable."

That is exactly what they said!  That's why he has to transfer his funds to a bank!

They should have done it before the OP came to the window. 

 

3 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

I'm assuming by "contraindication" you mean contradiction, but then I'm unsure what you mean by the "absence of that clear contradiction".  In the OP's case there was no contradiction, so there was an absence of contradiction as far as Immigration rules were concerned.

I did not mean contradiction, I meant contraindication meaning express statement of what is not. 

 

I think I get what you have said and I agree with you. It's alright if you dont get my point. You have asked me to stop, I will. Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

"I think the Immigration Police should have anticipated the OP's confusion and said that funds in anything other than a bank were NOT acceptable."

That is exactly what they said!  That's why he has to transfer his funds to a bank!

 

I'm assuming by "contraindication" you mean contradiction, but then I'm unsure what you mean by the "absence of that clear contradiction".  In the OP's case there was no contradiction, so there was an absence of contradiction as far as Immigration rules were concerned.

I think the point being made (which I do not agree with) is that for the benefit of those who do not know what a "bank" is, immigration should have had a explicit definition (perhaps, a list of acceptable banks, perhaps a list of types of financial institutions that are not banks) to avoid an applicant believing a non bank is a bank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, BritTim said:

I think the point being made (which I do not agree with) is that for the benefit of those who do not know what a "bank" is, immigration should have had a explicit definition (perhaps, a list of acceptable banks, perhaps a list of types of financial institutions that are not banks) to avoid an applicant believing a non bank is a bank.

Sir, when you say "acceptable" banks there will be people who will say ask what banks would not be acceptable in that case. 

Edited by Aditi Sharma
edit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And more importantly why not. I dont think the forum has found an answer to the question presented by the OP yet. Why are co-operatives not acceptable as banks. Agreed that they are not banks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Aditi Sharma said:

Sir, when you say "acceptable" banks there will be people who will say what banks would not be acceptable. 

When I say "acceptable", I mean banks that the Thai authorities define as being banks. The Bank of Thailand webpage I gave a link to earlier in this thread lists them.

I do not think it realistic to list them in a Police Order as they will tend to change over time. In addition, most applicants will probably know the difference between a bank and other kinds of financial institutions.

Anyway, however the Police Order was worded, some applicants and some immigration officials will probably misread it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

BANGKOK 18 November 2017 08:08
Sponsors
×